Updates from February, 2018 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Kate 18:29 on 2018-02-26 Permalink | Reply  

    Why do owners give their new Montreal businesses English names? Apparently they give an air of international cool, according to this Radio-Canada report. But the SSJB is not happy at the tolerance of the trend.

  • Kate 08:00 on 2018-02-26 Permalink | Reply  

    Is it spring break or reading week? Transit feels weirdly empty this morning.

    Also it’s icy on the sidewalks but that’ll probably melt off in an hour or two.

    • Kevin 08:18 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      Spring break is March 3-9.
      But the sidewalks and streets in my neighbourhood were more treacherous than normal this morning (call it an 8 on 10 instead of the 5 on 10 it’s been since Plante took over).

    • Emily Gray 08:58 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      I remember that when I went to McGill, a student wished another student a good “spring break,” and the other student commented, “It’s not spring and it’s not a break.”

    • Bert 09:21 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

    • DavidH 11:57 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      It is for UQAM.

  • Kate 07:03 on 2018-02-26 Permalink | Reply  

    Want to float this out there. TVA has a story Monday about the acquittal of two men in a shooting death five years ago. The text is not explicit in saying their acquittal was a mistake, but the emotional weight of the story is all on that side. It’s a tendency I’ve seen a lot lately, more notably in two recent stories from elsewhere in Canada – the acquittals of Gerald Stanley in the shooting of Colten Boushie and Roger Cormier in the death of Tina Fontaine.

    Now those other stories involve indigenous victims and I understand that adds another angle, but the tenor of a lot of the reporting – especially a lot of the tone on social media – is that the courts were wrong, justice was not done, and the defendants should have been found guilty in order to fulfill a social need. The same tone is in the initial article above: the family’s feelings are put above the actual mechanics of law, in that it would have felt to be fairer to see retribution.

    But it’s dangerous for us to do justice based on feelings, from the family or from the wider world of social media. There are requirements in the terms of law that lay out what evidence is, what qualifications have to be met, before a person can be declared guilty. Those are important, and they can’t bend because people feel a certain way about an incident or a death.

    This isn’t to say that judges and juries are always right. There’s ingrained social bias all around, but we should all be equally protected by the rules about evidence and proof. Also, I would hold that a judge or jury that’s sat through the sifting of evidence inevitably knows a lot more about any case than a reader who’s skimmed a couple of paragraphs in the media. Joining in a social media dogpile undermines the process of justice, and I don’t think it does society any favours in the long run.

    • Mark Côté 11:23 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      The more considered protests over these verdicts point out that there may be issues with the justice system itself that need to be addressed.

    • John B 22:29 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      What I’ve seen of the Tina Fontaine case & protests look like they’re protesting the whole system, not so much the not-guilty verdict. The evidence in the case was pretty thin, the guy didn’t even mount a defence, and he was acquitted. Everything I’ve read sounds like the police found someone that could possibly be connected to Tina Fontaine, then passed it off to the prosecutors.

      As the CBC article says, it wasn’t just the police that failed her, (even though an officer spoke to her as part of a traffic stop after she had been reported missing and did nothing). The whole system did, from the Child Protective Services that put her in a hotel in a shady corner of downtown Winnipeg, (maybe without CPS staff on-site? It’s not clear), to the police, to the prosecutors offices, to maybe even the courts, (although if the accused in this case didn’t do it, I guess the courts did the right thing and maybe someone will start looking again for the real killer).

      When Tina Fontaine was a baby I lived in downtown Winnipeg, in & around the places she was. It’s not somewhere I would want to be if I was 15 and alone, and I’m a white male.

  • Kate 06:49 on 2018-02-26 Permalink | Reply  

    QMI says it has found a quiet, unannounced million dollars for parties for the 375th concealed inside other city bookkeeping.

  • Kate 06:47 on 2018-02-26 Permalink | Reply  

    On CBC, Benjamin Shingler says the Royalmount mall will transform the city even though it was hatched solely within the Town of Mount Royal.

    • Faiz Imam 08:59 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      Thanks to this project, I’ve been studying that area much more, and with some changes something like this project could actually make sense. For example the devimco project at Longueuil metro, or the Angus project in the east. The residential transformation of industrial space is possible and important.

      Unfortunately the way the developer and TMR is talking does not make me optimistic that they want to go in the right direction.

      But the fact is that thanks to Blue bonnets, the triangle and other nearby developments this area is looking at adding nearly 10,000 new units in the next decade or so.

      A new high density commercial center could knit the Area together, not to mention be the catalyst for incrementally creating new residential projects replacing the lower value office parks and industrial warehouses In that whole area.

      The savane and Namur metro stations could be the link to an entire sustainable new neighbourhood.

      But that’s not what this is. The focus on ultra special, luxury retail to attract a regional client base with no focus on residential development and community infrastructure means this lead to nothing but auto demand, potentially giving licence to the MTQ to massively expanding the Decarie interchange much bigger than they currently plan to.

      If this plan does lead to any neighbourhood development it’ll be purely incidental and of low quality, because doing that requires planning and vision that TMR has not demonstrated.

    • Tim S. 10:52 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      Just had a quick look at the CBC article. It’s a real shame CBC choose to illustrate the article with promotional drawings from the developer. Once again I wonder if the quality of infrastructure around here would be improved if we simply banned all “artist’s renderings” of future projects.

    • Faiz Imam 12:01 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      Oh, and if these guys had any real vision for transit oriented development, they would be pushing very hard for an extension of the orange line to Bois franc. A transfer to the REM would mean a much higher quality connection to the airport and the west island and would actually attract thousands of clients to choose that method over driving.let’s be real, barely a handful of people would use any sort of shuttle bus they propose.

      Also, the savane station already had a tunnel stub that was planned for decades ago for this very purpose. It would be much more direct and efficient than an overhead passage. This also shows that they care more about having a signature billboard to attract drivers than they do about incetivising transit.

    • Ephraim 15:19 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      We don’t really have any urban hubs, like they have in Toronto at the 401 and Yonge. And area with higher density (condos mostly), shopping and office towers as well. Basically a mini downtown, right on a metro line. So we don’t have all the traffic going to one hub on the metro. People can live and work in that area and others travel by metro to it, because like downtown even parking is difficult for the office buildings. There is a small area near Anjou like this, but no metro.

    • ant6n 16:50 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      …and all right next to a giant highway interchange.

    • mare 19:04 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      Not next to a GIANT highway interchange. Next to a badly designed, under-dimensioned highway interchange, that already has way more traffic it can handle. It doesn’t need more clogged entrances and exits with all the ripple effects of traffic jams, noise and bad air quality in a very large area, much bigger than TMR.

      It’s developers that are running the show here, and I’m sure TMR gets a lot of extra tax income so it can lower its citizen’s taxes and the mayor will get re-elected.

    • Ephraim 12:00 on 2018-02-27 Permalink

      The 15/40 at that point is extremely badly built. Essentially 2 lanes going N/S meet 2 lanes going E/W and yet it’s supposed to be BOTH highways and therefore 4 lanes between the 15s.

  • Kate 11:17 on 2018-02-25 Permalink | Reply  

    A then-and-now from the Centre d’histoire shows the now empty corner where the Spectrum used to be, vs the Alouette, the cinema that morphed into the venue, and the Beaver Café that used to be upstairs.

    Note the QdS logo on the placards dotting that sad empty lot. It’s based on ITC Luna.

    • Uatu 14:20 on 2018-02-25 Permalink

      Shame about the Spectrum. It was a great concert venue with really good sight lines. Really wish developers would get their act together so that a decent place doesn’t get demolished just for the lot to sit empty…

  • Kate 09:09 on 2018-02-25 Permalink | Reply  

    A good op-ed in Le Devoir echoes ant6n’s reservations about the funding and development of the REM.

    • Faiz Imam 01:32 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      Good overview of the possible risks.

      One thing though, I’m sure i’ll be corrected if i’m wrong, but doesn’t the Province have a right of first refusal on the REM? The claim that the Caisse could sell the line to the highest bidder seems suspect to me.

      On an overall philosophical level though, one schizm in this debate is over how maximum profit of the line mutates its usefulness and it’s interaction with the ARTM.

      For the most part, I’m convinced it’s in their best interest to make the “product” as useful to as many people as possible, which means maximising ridership and promoting the overall health of the entire transit network.

      Does the cost structure make this impossible? The folks at the ARTM and STM don’t seem to think so.

    • ant6n 08:27 on 2018-02-26 Permalink

      Thank you for another repeat of CDPQInfra PR talking points.

      Firstly, the incentive to maximize ridership and make money don’t perfectly align. It’s one of the claims of CDPQInfra and we see that it’s not true. For one, CDPQInfra gets 2.5 billion in essentially ‘free’ money from the governments, a subsidy that is used to build a system with a certain capacity. Since they are extremely fixated on automation (which makes the capital cost of the system much more expensive and thus capacity lower for the same money), the overall system capacity is limited by what they can afford with the 6 billion or so that are a result of the constraints imposed by the desire for a 8% return, that they can’t ask for more than 72c passenger-km, and that they get 2.5billion in free money.

      We see this is in action with the choices they make. If their economic constraints had been different, i.e. with a desire to maximize ridership, regional integration and mode shift (which would be the concerns of a publicly planned project), we would’ve built a system centered around the Mount-Royal tunnel that would be modelled after Paris’ RER or Germanys’ S-Bahns — that is, a system with a single trunk line designed for a ridership of 600K-1000K per day, not a measly 200K.

      There are many examples in the transportation world that maximizing returns and ridership don’t align (e.g. High Speed rail, or business/1st class in aviation).

      Further, the concern of the sale may be exaggerated, but it’s not the real one: the real concern is loss of control. If it was concerning just the Deux-Montagnes line branch or whatever, the concern wouldn’t be that big. But it concerns the Mount-Royal tunnel, Gare Centrale, and the viaduct south of Gare Centrale. Having this infrastructure outside of public control is extremely insipid, and it’s a less we should’ve learned during the last year, after Michael Sabia privatized CN, which has been screwing over regional and intercity transportation for more than 20 years.

      So the short-sighted initial planning with low capacity and a technology-lock-in that makes RTM/VIA incompatible with REM can not be fixed later. blocking future expansions of the system. It effectively means that on top of wasting billions now for a small ridership, we’re making existing infrastructure unavailable in the future, which will cost us many more billions down the road if we need the capacity — or more likely, nothing will be done and we’ll just continue a car-centric city.

      Lastly, it will be relatively easy for CDPQInfra to flog off the infrastructure to something other than the government. You just have to do it when some neoliberal government is in place that is ideologically driven to starve the public and privatize infrastructure assets. In the last 20 years, that’s basically always. (One also has to wonder whether the government has right of first refusal for the separate company they’re creating that will hold the important infra assets)

      Regarding the STM and the ARTM, they’ve been gagged. It’s pretty disingenuous to use their forced compliance as proof that they think this is a great scheme.

    • Faiz Imam 23:06 on 2018-02-27 Permalink

      I don’t want to rehash the old debates, but there’s a couple of aspects we have not covered before.

      Why would you say that automation is more expensive? the Alstom Metropolis cars are basically off the shelf industry standard LRT at this point.

      And you know as well as I do that the design of the Champlain bridge requires them to use lighter LRT tech and not heavy rail, unless they want seperate lines that terminate downtown, which is a huge restriction to mobility and eliminates one of the core promises of the system.

      Of course, the trains can and should be longer. They have 80m stations to keep station construction costs lower, but I’ve always hoped for 120m trains from the start.

      They’ve never denied they can expand them eventually if needed. If the line really does end up reaching crush capacity for the entirety of rush hour, I expect they’ll push government to cover the cost of such an expansion(i’ll not comment of what is the fair way to do that).

      As it is though, Capacity is fine. we are looking at a small localized spike that current DM demand would cause, much of which may be managed by having a flatter, wider demand curve as a result of the high frequency changing rider behavior.

      Another thing. you know as well as I do that the Caisse’s Projections seem oddly low and conservative. Many have used that to criticize its limited utility. I’ve always been skeptical of those numbers.

      Last week the ARTM said “The more people who ride the train, the lower the cost per passenger, If the REM attracts 15 per cent more riders than anticipated, the charge will drop to between 55 and 58 cents per kilometre travelled. ”


      So if we really do get to capacities that stretch the system to it’s limit, as you suggest, that also means the cost is quite a bit lower(lower than the current rail’s cost of 66c) and allows for even higher service provisioning.

      So unless you think those numbers are straight up false, it seems the long term liability of the REM on the overall system is less than you think.

    • ant6n 08:07 on 2018-02-28 Permalink

      Omg you keep rehashing the same old ‘arguments’ that have been refuted over and over. You really are a PR shill. Here we go again:

      1) Automation on Deux-Montagnes line is very expensive because it means building a completely grade separated system, with elevated sections, all-new completely enclosed stations, new trains and a new signalling system (for 2 billion$), when they could’ve upgraded the line to rapid transit operation (mostly building high level platforms) for 200-300M$.

      2) The system is cutting off heavily populated areas, and only connecting to low density areas, with suburban and parking-centric stations. That’s why they will can only accomodate 200K ridership at most. If they included the heavy rail branches that have a lot more population along them then the West Island branches (Mascouche, St-Jerome, maybe St-Hilaire line) then they run out of capacity immediately — because their stations are too short, and they don’t have any more schedule slots. And because their technology is incompatible.

      3) The weight issue on the Champlain bridge has been discussed many times, and it’s solvable, I encourage you to re-read my very long analysis on the subject.

    • Faiz Imam 17:16 on 2018-02-28 Permalink

      I’ve explained why I disagree with your first and second points before, you didn’t listen then so I doubt you’ll do so now.

      I actually read your wonderful article last night before writing my comment. It’s great research.

      It’s possible, but as you yourself said, it takes more time and has an increased chance of encountering regulatory issues. Those are risks that needs very strong reasons to to be justified.

      In the context of all the other factors that led them to choose a smaller lighter high frequency system, it’s just one more source of friction they can avoid.

      The fact is that the current system has the ability to be expanded to meet any future capacity issue, and the lower cost per passenger (as low as 55c) if they exceed their targets means they’ll be in good financial shape to actually do so.

      Which is great, because the shovels go into the ground next month and these tedious arguments can finally go in the history books where they belong.

    • ant6n 21:17 on 2018-02-28 Permalink

      Right, you disagree with facts, even stuff published by CDPQInfra itself, if it doesn’t fit your fantasy story…

      The 55c per passenger-km marginal operation cost if there’s a lot of ridership you keep going back to is still pretty high — the Deux-Montagnes line operates at 30-35c today, and the metro operates at 20-25c or so.

      You still don’t understand the basic financial construct here (or don’t want to, or don’t have the capacity to) — CDPQInfra has zero incentive to fix their various planning mistakes. You keep going back to points that have been refuted over and over, like that the interests of the public and that of CDPQInfra are aligned somehow, when they are not (sure your personal interests and CDPQInfra’s are aligned, because you’re not personally personally paying for the light rail to your suburb, and you don’t care about the overall regional transit system).

      You say “They will be in great financial shape” to expand their system somehow — but in reality, they will be in great shape only to make money from us, that’s it. They’re not gifting us anything, and never will — it’s the public who’s gifting them 3 billion in cash, and a couple more billion in assets. I doubt the stations will ever get expanded as long as they own it, just as it’s not happening on the similarly under-designed Canada Line.

    • Faiz Imam 02:17 on 2018-03-01 Permalink

      Assertions of yours I disagree with:

      that not building a fully grade separated system was ever a reasonable option.
      that not building a system without fully accessible, enclosed stations was ever a reasonable option.

      Those requirements lead to smaller stations and trains, which lead to high frequency requirements, which leads to automation, which reinforces the initial requirement. It’s all connected.

      I also think “The system is cutting off heavily populated areas, and only connecting to low density areas, with suburban and parking-centric stations” is totally wrong characterization.

      The only thing it’s inconveniencing is the small fraction of the measly 7000 daily mascouche riders that happen to work walking distance from Gare centrale (Most users will benefit from transfers since they have to transfer after GC anyways). It’ll create more opportunity that it reduces (ex: Mascouche resident who works in St-Laurent, UdeM, etc, etc.)

      And “low density areas, with suburban and parking-centric stations” shows a mix of ignorance and elitist dismissal of the station design of most of the network.

      Especially since the PMAD explicitly encourages development of greyfield sites into TODs, which is already changing master plans (oh right, you’d prefer we abandon our suburbs and resign ourselves to continued development till we have sprawl to Mirabel)

      The Fact is that between 2006 and 2011, 97% of ALL Montreal’s population growth happened in the suburbs.(Gordon, 2013). The city recognises that you can’t stop this by only adding more density in the core, it’s growth plans for years advocate intensification across the region to slow down fringe development.

      For the last time, you stop sprawl by changing landuse plans, not by limiting transit options, and you can’t change landuse without providing alternative options that developers think will actually sell.

      PS. “They will be in great financial shape” was referring to the ARTM and STM, not the Caisse.

    • ant6n 12:37 on 2018-03-01 Permalink

      Discussions with you are usually boring and the attempt to untangle your web of upside down logic and half-truths that keeps on coming is very exhausting; but I’m just coming back to point out the irony that you’re shilling hard for a project that’s all about serving affluent suburbs and their drivers, while happily and explicitly screwing over less affluent, currently bus-dependent areas — but then you’re calling me “elitist”!

  • Kate 08:09 on 2018-02-25 Permalink | Reply  

    Sad to read that the local news site Pamplemousse is closing.

    • Raymond Lutz 13:23 on 2018-02-25 Permalink

      Ricochet is still around (I crowd-funded their launch), why Pamplemousse hasn’t succeeded following the same path? Stéphane Desjardins écrit ‘J’ai aussi initié une transformation vers le modèle coopératif. L’accueil fut très enthousiaste. Mais nos liquidités ont manqué avant que cette conversion puisse se concrétiser.’ est plutôt vague. Je n’ai pas demandé sur Pamplemousse.ca,il fallait un compte Facebook… (qu’il dénonce d’ailleurs dans ce texte d’adieu, comme drainant les revenus de publicité).

  • Kate 08:06 on 2018-02-25 Permalink | Reply  

    Le Devoir has a Montreal demographics quiz based on information from the maps they published this week.

    • Zeke 11:15 on 2018-02-25 Permalink


      9/10 without even looking at the original map or article.

  • Kate 07:54 on 2018-02-25 Permalink | Reply  

    Promised years ago, an observation point at the top of the St Joseph’s Oratory dome is now expected to open to the public in 2020.

  • Kate 17:09 on 2018-02-24 Permalink | Reply  

    Here’s a list of impending metro station upgrades expected this year, on the STM site.

    • Emily Gray 18:12 on 2018-02-24 Permalink

      I’m not sure if this counts as an “upgrade,” but maybe before the STM does all these upgrades, they can make sure all their escalators actually work.

    • Chris 22:06 on 2018-02-24 Permalink

      The addition of elevators is an upgrade, everything else is just maintenance. Nothing that’ll get people out of their cars.

    • Faiz Imam 00:28 on 2018-02-25 Permalink

      It’s worth pointing out that broken elevators and disgusting, badly cared for infrastructure definitely *will* push some back back to their cars.

      Maintenance might not be sexy, but it’s absolutely necessary if we want to live in a society that respects transit as a mainstream option.

    • Kate 08:58 on 2018-02-25 Permalink

      Chris, the extent of the modernization and reconditioning mentioned on the list is not explained, and could make those stations much more appealing.

      However, you seem hung up on the notion that public transit has to sell itself, but short of the STM operating an entire fleet of self-driving individual vehicles, there’s simply no way transit can equal the sheer convenience of the personal car. Also, of course, the privacy and avoidance of crowds, except the crowds of cars around you on the road.

      I commute every weekday to a job, nearly two hours a day on the metro at its most crowded times, often jostled by taller people shoving me in the face with their backpacks. My commute also involves a bus route with a limited schedule that constricts the window of time I can arrive at or leave work. (That situation is less of a problem in summer, but explaining this goes into too much detail.)

      I live pretty close to the dead centre of the island of Montreal but it’s nonetheless nearly a kilometer to the closest metro station, not much of a walk you might think, but quite enough on a really cold day or in a blizzard or downpour.

      I am fortunate to be able-bodied and capable of slinging most of a week’s food supply over my shoulder. I am also fortunate to have a job to which I can commute: many jobs in my trade have migrated to Laval or further into the south shore and couronne nord, areas to which it would be impractical to commute over two or more transit systems – hell, even most of the West Island would be a long slog without a vehicle.

      I accept these limitations given that I can’t drive, but I recognize them as limitations. Two thirds of us won’t accept them, or can’t.

    • Chris 12:41 on 2018-02-25 Permalink

      Faiz: I guess you meant ‘escalators’ yeah?, or are the elevators already falling apart?! They aren’t very old yet…

      Kate, from the description of your commute, it doesn’t sound like that list of “current and future major projects” lines up with what would improve your commute. Sounds like what would help you is increased frequency and reduced crowding. I know they also want to buy 300 new buses, that seems to me the kind of thing money should go into.

    • Ian 16:44 on 2018-02-25 Permalink

      Wile we’re talking about new buses, I’d love to know why the already underserved West Island express buses are some of the nastiest, most poorly maintained buses in the fleet. I’d love one of the new buses they run on the 51 line for my commute, but I’m in dingy clunkers with bad door seals (it gets cold at highway speed FYI), frayed seats, windows that don’t always close all the way, and sometimes they even run a 747 on the 211 and 405 lines so people end up having to stand for an hour because of the totally unnecessary luggage racks.

      Either way the fact is that it takes me an hour and a half to get to Sainte-Anne from Mile End on a good day, and it’s only a 45 minute drive taking the same route as the STM or 35 if you take the T-Can. I totally understand why people prefer cars.

  • Kate 12:58 on 2018-02-24 Permalink | Reply  

    Bombardier’s bitter tears over not getting selected to build the REM has resulted in Quebec pressuring Montreal to buy more metro cars from them sooner rather than later so’s to keep people employed at their factory in La Pocatière. It’s an attempt to make this city subsidize jobs in another part of Quebec, and at least partly to sustain support for the PLQ there in the upcoming election.

    • Ginger Baker 13:30 on 2018-02-24 Permalink

      In other words, we can’t maximize the value of the high-quality product we purchased (that still has nearly 20 years of life left in them) because a de facto publicly financed corporation is blackmailing an unpopular political party heading into an election.

      It’s not that Quebec is the most corrupt province; it’s that this is somehow legal.

    • mare 13:54 on 2018-02-24 Permalink

      Hey, if the Quebec government invests some money to finance building the green line extension and the pink line, Montreal will surely buy some extra metro cars…

    • ant6n 20:59 on 2018-02-24 Permalink

      Slightly ironically, if the REM had been more of a heavy-rail/metro hybrid, in order to ensure compatibility with VIA and the RTM, then Bombardier probably would’ve been in a better position to build that, since they have more experience with heavy rail.

    • Faiz Imam 00:32 on 2018-02-25 Permalink

      I can’t recall where I read this, but another fact that makes Bombardier’s position that much more cynical is that their own REM bid was apparently did not primarily Quebec based either.

      They planned on getting much of the work done in China, the same way their Toronto contract did most of the work in Mexico with finishing work locally.

      So pushing for a new metro contract is not at all about fairness or justice of any kind.

    • Kevin 10:55 on 2018-02-25 Permalink

      I figure that the Caisse had a very good reason for not giving the company it owns a chunk of the contract to build trains for itself

    • ant6n 21:16 on 2018-02-25 Permalink

      That …trust? is misplaced.

  • Kate 10:04 on 2018-02-24 Permalink | Reply  

    Odile Tremblay writes about Claude Dolbec who does sign lettering on the Main. A new documentary, Claude n’est pas mort, tells his story. Unfortunately, the Le Devoir piece doesn’t show any of the man’s work, but there’s some in this 2011 blog piece by Brigitte Schuster (which includes work for Laïka and Fuchsia, both now gone).

  • Kate 09:44 on 2018-02-24 Permalink | Reply  

    Every time Formula E is mentioned in the media, the total on the bill gets bigger. Creditors now want $34 million from the Montreal c’est electrique group – which doesn’t have it.

  • Kate 09:42 on 2018-02-24 Permalink | Reply  

    The lousy hockey season means lower bar takings as owners try to find other ways to entice people in.

    • Ginger Baker 13:24 on 2018-02-24 Permalink

      How much longer before taxpayers are expected to subsidize this as well.

      Credit where it’s due: bar owners never blame lack of parking on their woes…

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Translate »